926 N.W.2d 268
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Byron Township adopted zoning provisions (§§ 3.2.G, 3.2.H) treating medical-marijuana caregiving as a "home occupation," allowing cultivation only in dwellings/garages in residential zones and prohibiting such activity in commercial buildings.
- Ordinance required caregivers to obtain a township permit (application + fee) for medical-marijuana activity; permits could be revoked and violations penalized.
- Plaintiff is a registered qualifying patient and registered primary caregiver who cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility at a commercial property in the township.
- Township ordered plaintiff to cease medical-marijuana activities as a zoning violation; plaintiff sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the ordinance conflicted with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and was preempted.
- Township counterclaimed to enforce the ordinance; both parties moved for summary disposition. The trial court held the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA and was preempted; township appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MMMA preempts the township's home-occupation zoning ordinance | MMMA permits caregivers to cultivate in an "enclosed, locked facility" regardless of zoning; ordinance prohibits MMMA-compliant conduct and therefore is preempted | Ordinance regulates land use/location but does not prohibit MMMA rights—only restricts where activities may occur | Court held ordinance directly conflicts with MMMA and is preempted (MMMA permits cultivation in enclosed, locked facilities regardless of zoning) |
| Whether municipalities may use zoning to limit caregivers to residential "home occupations" | Such restrictions deny MMMA-granted rights and are invalid | Zoning authority under MZEA allows regulating location to protect public welfare | Court held MMMA does not authorize municipal limits on caregiver locations; zoning cannot bar MMMA-compliant use in commercial locations if enclosed, locked facility requirements are met |
| Whether permit/penalty scheme can be applied to MMMA-compliant activity | Permit requirement, revocation, and penalties would subject MMMA-compliant caregivers to sanctions prohibited by MMMA | Permit scheme is a neutral local regulation of land use, not a direct prohibition | Court held permit/penalty regime interferes with MMMA immunity and imposes unlawful sanctions on MMMA-compliant conduct, so preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 297 Mich. App. 446 (explains direct-conflict preemption when local law prohibits what state statute permits)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2014) (Michigan Supreme Court: MMMA preempts local ordinance that penalized MMMA-compliant medical use)
- State v. McQueen, 493 Mich. 135 (Mich. 2013) (discussion of interpreting MMMA and voters' intent)
- People v. Koon, 494 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2013) (MMMA preemption/interpretation principles)
- People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich. 192 (Mich. 2015) (MMMA confers immunity and prohibits denial of rights or privileges to qualifying patients/caregivers)